EPA will have to comply with an information request by July.

Share this story

In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, adding, “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”

Based on what?

Further Reading

The next day, a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the EPA, asking for any agency documents that Administrator Pruitt may have relied on to come to his conclusions. Since Pruitt’s words contradicted scientific evidence shared by the EPA before the administrator took office, PEER's request might turn up some recent document that indicated Pruitt had new information.

Instead, the EPA stalled and refused to provide any information to PEER. The employee group then sued the agency.

On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11.

In the Tuesday memo, Judge Beryl A. Howell described a slew of excuses used by the EPA to justify a refusal of PEER’s request. The EPA contended that PEER’s FOIA request was overly broad, that it was actually “an impermissible attempt to compel EPA and its administrator to answer questions and take a position on the climate change debate,” and that complying with the request would be burdensome.

In its own explanation to the court, the EPA argued that complying with PEER's FOIA request “would require EPA to spend countless hours researching and analyzing a vast trove of material on the effect of human activity on climate change,” which amounted to “a subjective assessment upon which reasonable minds can differ.”

“Epistemological smokescreen”

Judge Howell disagreed with these characterizations, calling the Agency’s objections “hyperbolic” and saying that claiming PEER’s FOIA was unclear was “both misplaced and troubling.”

“The agency asks ‘how is one to even know precisely what documents one relies on in forming one’s beliefs?’” the judge wrote in her brief. “As the plaintiff points out, however, nothing in the FOIA request seeks information ‘about Administrator Pruitt’s beliefs or how they were formed.’” Instead, the FOIA only requests any agency documents that the administrator relied on to formulate his public statement.

The judge also called it “particularly troubling" that the EPA argued that evidence for a factual statement by the administrator can be unknowable. “EPA’s strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to evade its obligations under the FOIA,” Judge Howell wrote.

The judge also accused the EPA of engaging in “a thinly veiled effort to make the request more complex and burdensome than it is.”

Howell concluded: “When the head of an agency makes a public statement that appears to contradict ‘the published research and conclusions of’ that agency, the FOIA provides a valuable tool for citizens... Compliance with such a request would help ‘ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society.’”

Wow, I can't wait to see EPA's statement when it fails to find anything to support Pruitt's idiotic stance. An entire agency worth of documents to look in and nothing to back up the Administrator's statement.

Sorry whenever I read an article on Ars about a ruling that follows law and makes sense and seems to suggest the judge knows what the heck he's talking about my mind just fills in Judge Alsup automatically anymore.

the EPA argued that evidence for a factual statement by the Administrator can be unknowable.

I just wanted to highlight this.

Then I would like to highlight that anyone who is ok with the current EPA head that I own a bridge they can buy at a huge discount. It is mine, that is a fact, although the facts cannot be substantiated at this or any time. But it's still a fact.

Honest Trump EPA: "Look Our Admin Pulled Data out of his Ass and Presented it as facts, the only way we can retrieve that data he relied on is through a colonoscopy, which would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for both Mr. Pruitt and the people who have to see it. With that in mind, we would like you to dismiss this case on grounds of the 8th Amendment."

A government more run by the Koch's and Liberty University than the Bush administration. You did a good job that November, America. Pruitt is sticking around he is the favorite of the Koch's, any other appointee would have resigned.

If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11.

Since we all know what's going to happen, I'll just save everyone some time by offering up the EPA's statement now.

"The explanation for the absence of the requested information is that Administrator Pruitt was dealing with alternative facts that have no basis in reality. As they are unreal statements, they cannot be placed within the physical realm and are thus unavailable."

Wow, I can't wait to see EPA's statement when it fails to find anything to support Pruitt's idiotic stance. An entire agency worth of documents to look in and nothing to back up the Administrator's statement.

It's not that hard, actually. Let's see...

Quote:

On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11.

July 1: "We are unable to provide any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year."

July 10: "To the best of our knowledge, information, and belief Administrator Pruitt has never read a single EPA document."

The government, by law, cannot use any resource it wants in order to make rules. In order for information to be ‘actionable’ (agencies can use to set rules) it has to go through a very specific process. This process guarantees that the opinions are from verifiable experts, and that they have no financial conflicts. The purpose of the National Academies Reports is to go through this process, so that government agencies can legally use the results to make decisions.

So if the EPA digs up random reports as the basis for the opinion, the rule making is illegal, and the associated rules will be sued into oblivion.

This is why the EPA is twisting and trying to avoid this FOIA so hard. We know what has gone through the process to be actionable. If they come up with anything else, the agency is in violation of federal law. If they don’t come up with anything, then they have no basis for the rulemaking. They’re screwed either way.

The government, by law, cannot use any resource it wants in order to make rules. In order for information to be ‘actionable’ (agencies can use to set rules) it has to go through a very specific process. This process guarantees that the opinions are from verifiable experts, and that they have no financial conflicts. The purpose of the National Academies Reports is to go through this process, so that government agencies can legally use the results to make decisions.

So if the EPA digs up random reports as the basis for the opinion, the rule making is illegal, and the associated rules will be sued into oblivion.

This is why the EPA is twisting and trying to avoid this FOIA so hard. We know what has gone through the process to be actionable. If they come up with anything else, the agency is in violation of federal law. If they don’t come up with anything, then they have no basis for the rulemaking. They’re screwed either way.

Mate in 2 moves.

I don't think the administrator's comments inherently constitute rule-making. It's a statement of beliefs but the administratorof the EPA is allowed to have his own beliefs. It's only problematic if his beliefs are factually incorrect and lead him to interfere with the rule-making process on the basis of those errors. Which is the case, of course, but the beliefs themselves are still just beliefs and not rules.

The government, by law, cannot use any resource it wants in order to make rules. In order for information to be ‘actionable’ (agencies can use to set rules) it has to go through a very specific process. This process guarantees that the opinions are from verifiable experts, and that they have no financial conflicts. The purpose of the National Academies Reports is to go through this process, so that government agencies can legally use the results to make decisions.

So if the EPA digs up random reports as the basis for the opinion, the rule making is illegal, and the associated rules will be sued into oblivion.

This is why the EPA is twisting and trying to avoid this FOIA so hard. We know what has gone through the process to be actionable. If they come up with anything else, the agency is in violation of federal law. If they don’t come up with anything, then they have no basis for the rulemaking. They’re screwed either way.

Mate in 2 moves.

Not so fast. This isn't (as far as I know) related to any actual rule-making. Just public statements.

Well all the EPA needs to produce as documentation is the agreements for the highly paid and nebulous position of "special consultant" after Pruitt's term, plus maybe bank account statements showing deposits from unnamed "benefactors"

That's all the documents needed to have "helped Pruitt come to the conclusion"

Howell concluded: “When the head of an agency makes a public statement that appears to contradict ‘the published research and conclusions of’ that agency, the FOIA provides a valuable tool for citizens... Compliance with such a request would help ‘ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society.’”

Wow, I can't wait to see EPA's statement when it fails to find anything to support Pruitt's idiotic stance. An entire agency worth of documents to look in and nothing to back up the Administrator's statement.

If he relied on non-Agency documents (off-the-record Exxon, Oral Roberts U. theses, Youtube stuff, etc.) then there's nothing to disclose, right? Does a statement, factual or otherwise, by an EPA Administrator need to be based on agency documents? How would you say that in lawyer-speak?

Groan.

And wondering what odds LV would offer against that being the final result of this.

The real problem comes when he tries to withdraw the Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases. *THAT* does need a factual, scientific basis which I really don't see him cooking up.

The government, by law, cannot use any resource it wants in order to make rules. In order for information to be ‘actionable’ (agencies can use to set rules) it has to go through a very specific process. This process guarantees that the opinions are from verifiable experts, and that they have no financial conflicts. The purpose of the National Academies Reports is to go through this process, so that government agencies can legally use the results to make decisions.

So if the EPA digs up random reports as the basis for the opinion, the rule making is illegal, and the associated rules will be sued into oblivion.

This is why the EPA is twisting and trying to avoid this FOIA so hard. We know what has gone through the process to be actionable. If they come up with anything else, the agency is in violation of federal law. If they don’t come up with anything, then they have no basis for the rulemaking. They’re screwed either way.

edit: and true to form, Bennett is already sliming up the comments of Techdirt's reporting on the story, spamming links to his own blog where he desperately attempts to handwave, speculate, and ad-hom the story away.

the EPA argued that evidence for a factual statement by the Administrator can be unknowable.

I just wanted to highlight this.

Then I would like to highlight that anyone who is ok with the current EPA head that I own a bridge they can buy at a huge discount. It is mine, that is a fact, although the facts cannot be substantiated at this or any time. But it's still a fact.

My favorite part was this:

Quote:

“would require EPA to spend countless hours researching and analyzing a vast trove of material on the effect of human activity on climate change”

Basically arguing that this FIOA is too burdensome because it would require the EPA administration to do their actual. Fucking. Job.

edit: and true to form, Bennett is already sliming up the comments of Techdirt's reporting on the story, spamming links to his own blog where he desperately attempts to handwave, speculate, and ad-hom the story away.

Speaking of, I haven't seen Bennett in here in a while. Have our invites gotten lost in the mail?

How can this FOIA request possibly be reasonable when complying with it would mean pulling EPA staff away from these invaluable tasks?

Doesn't he know to hire outside agency lackeys to scuttle around and waste money and do dirt? It is like he is not even adept at malfeasance. I like to think he has some dark addiction or secret that eats up all his money so he cannot afford to even be a good villain - perhaps strangling hookers, or cocaine. These are my beliefs, and sorry Pruitt - i cannot produce documents to prove them - but its true because I said it and believe it.

The right wing strategy is to push any trial until this administration can nominate enough SC Justices to basically have a massive corrupt state not based on facts or science, but emotion and religious dogma.